bmitchell wrote:
] I'm not sure we should project western ideals and morals upon
] other groups of people. It seems to me that little of this was
] a surprise;

Certainly Bush blessed this outcome before the November election, but I don't think the American people are actually prepared for it despite the paper trail they have laid out.

] certainly there's never been any chance whatsoever
] of a real seperation between religion and the state a la the
] west.

I don't agree. Iraq was a secular state before we showed up.

] The real question is: do we think a nation should have the
] right to elect a government which may have ideals in terms of
] equality (particularly gender equality) that are vastly
] different than ours? If the answer is no, then how can we
] truly say we believe in democracy?

The answer is yes, otherwise we'd be invading South Korea, but we don't respect it, regardless of the cultural explanation that is raised for it. "My culture is different" is no excuse for crime.

Having said that, the matter of an islamist Iraq is far more complex then this. Its not just that women will be worse off then they were before we started, is that Iraq will pose a greater threat to the region then it did when we started. Maybe not now, but fundamentalist states are violent states. It is inevitable.

Freedom is not about Democracy. Freedom is about limits to the power of government. Democracy does not create those limits. Democracies have been know to do terrible things. It could be argued that Iraq was always a democracy. In theory the people could vote against Saddam. It might be argued that Singapore is a Democracy. What is the difference in the U.S.? That we have two parties instead of one? Do we really have an "open" election HERE? Why weren't the Green and Libertarian parties welcome to participate in the presidential debates? What is the real difference between what we do and what they do?

The difference is limits, not voting. Limits are created constitutionally. Things like Freedom of Speech and of Religion. The fact that you really have the right to dissent, and not the power apparatus through which you do so. The later is meaningless without the former. A Religious State can have no constitutional limits, because to limit a religious state is to limit God. A Religious State can have no real right to dissent, as to dissent in a Religious State is to admire the devil.

So yes, I think, if you produce a fundamentalist state in Iraq the result you'll get will be worse then what you had when you started. We don't think fundamentalist "democracies" are the kind of freedom we're looking for.

Of course, freedom and democracy have one thing in common with WMD in that they have very little to do with our reason for invading Iraq. The real question is whether or not Bush can spin this one. I'll bet he figures he can. He went to war with a bullshit explanation, ended up having it thrown in his face, and still managed to get re-election by a population that eats his party's propaganda up like its the new religion. I'll bet he figures he can pull it off a second time, or he figures he'll be out of office before most people in the country figure out what Iraq has really become. I wouldn't bet against him. But 100 years from now people will be spitting his name.

RE: Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq